No reason to add Las Vegas in that report. Those issues were on THAT franchise not the league.

What about the issues with the Emmert ownership group... oh wait we just happened to no focus on him too so not to drag his name through the mud.

Typical local "investigative" reporting. Take it with a grain of salt.

Butera kept the league running with a plan that is sound. Makes NO difference that there were only 5 teams. NONE.

Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law.

This was not a report about Emmert and the Thunder. This is a report about Butera and the Steel. All of these points made in Kyle Iboshi's report are in regard to the Steel only. The reason the report did not highlight Emmert's "not paying his bills" are solely because there have never been any credible reports of Emmert actually not paying his bills. Certainly not Adam's statements. In fact, the only ones making this claim are people on here. Adam is the least credible person to talk about Portland sports. Remember, he kept reporting that Paul Allen was absolutely going to buy the Steel. Adam was wrong. Anyone who repeated that was wrong. I even remember him saying that he knew more from his office in Orlando than "some guy" who has been reporting Portland sports for more than four decades (longer than Adam has been alive). Again, Adam's and other's reports of Emmert not paying his bills are completely not credible.

I understand you want to attack the source. What you do not know is that Kyle Iboshi is solid. Digging into things is what he does. He is very good at it, If he was not in Portland, he would be in another city investigating and reporting. I keep using this word, but Kyle Iboshi is credible. Anyone criticizing he or his report just because they do not like what it says is uninformed and unqualified to do so.

As far as this report being one-sided goes; well, Kyle Iboshi did reach out to the league and to Butera, and receive no response. Just because someone doe not respond, does not mean there is no cause to report the facts.

Tim, I like you. You and I have always been cool. I am not looking to attack. I would simply like to ask you to take a step back and look at the big picture here, rather than respond in defense of Butera._________________This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.

Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law.

See, I've always been under the impression that AF1, LLC (which conducts business as the "Arena Football League") is a single-entity organization, and that its "franchisees" aren't franchisees in the common sense of the term, but more "managers," operating on behalf of AF1.

To put context to this contrast, imagine two fast food franchise groups. One's McDonald's, in which a guy who operates a location in Dubuque has been awarded a franchise specific to that location, operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co.").

The other is "Herbie's," in which a guy who operates a location in St. Louis has been granted authority to operate there, but who is a partner in the parent company (e.g., "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc.") rather than operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "St. Louis Herbie's Franchise, LLC").

The original AFL was a McDonald's in this regard. AF1, LLC appears to be a Herbie's.

The difference becomes evident when bills stop being paid. In the McDonald's example, "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co." is the entity on the hook, and while the McDonald's Corporation could take a PR hit, they aren't financially liable for the debts. In the Herbie's example though, "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc." is on the hook for all debts, wherever it has a location.

This is a long-winded way of saying that AF1, LLC is the responsible party for the debts of ALL its departed franchises, up to the point of their departure. So they're responsible for both Las Vegas and Portland's trail of debts... with the remaining four operators (as members of the LLC) responsible for paying them through AF1, LLC. Arizona and Jacksonville likely bought their way out of AF1, LLC, making a deal to pay off their share of AF1's debts upon departure, in exchange for keeping the team's intellectual properties and identity package.

If I'm anywhere close to being accurate about this however, the AFL's all but dead; as I mentioned earlier, no one in their right mind is going to pump money into a league knowing that by doing so, they're essentially just covering past losses and diluting the value of their investment initially to nothing. Unless it's someone who wants a multi-million dollar tax loss to put on their books.

Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law.

See, I've always been under the impression that AF1, LLC (which conducts business as the "Arena Football League") is a single-entity organization, and that its "franchisees" aren't franchisees in the common sense of the term, but more "managers," operating on behalf of AF1.

To put context to this contrast, imagine two fast food franchise groups. One's McDonald's, in which a guy who operates a location in Dubuque has been awarded a franchise specific to that location, operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co.").

The other is "Herbie's," in which a guy who operates a location in St. Louis has been granted authority to operate there, but who is a partner in the parent company (e.g., "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc.") rather than operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "St. Louis Herbie's Franchise, LLC").

The original AFL was a McDonald's in this regard. AF1, LLC appears to be a Herbie's.

The difference becomes evident when bills stop being paid. In the McDonald's example, "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co." is the entity on the hook, and while the McDonald's Corporation could take a PR hit, they aren't financially liable for the debts. In the Herbie's example though, "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc." is on the hook for all debts, wherever it has a location.

This is a long-winded way of saying that AF1, LLC is the responsible party for the debts of ALL its departed franchises, up to the point of their departure. So they're responsible for both Las Vegas and Portland's trail of debts... with the remaining four operators (as members of the LLC) responsible for paying them through AF1, LLC. Arizona and Jacksonville likely bought their way out of AF1, LLC, making a deal to pay off their share of AF1's debts upon departure, in exchange for keeping the team's intellectual properties and identity package.

If I'm anywhere close to being accurate about this however, the AFL's all but dead; as I mentioned earlier, no one in their right mind is going to pump money into a league knowing that by doing so, they're essentially just covering past losses and diluting the value of their investment initially to nothing. Unless it's someone who wants a multi-million dollar tax loss to put on their books.

This - the ownership by league vs team - of failed franchise cost is why SJ, Jax, Orlando, Iowa and to some extent why AZ left.

Single entity vs Individual team ownership is what AFL vs NAL (well at least from Jax perspective) is about.

Do owners really want to be on the hook for failed franchise bills? That's the questions. And with the new owner screening Kurz did, it really showed._________________4th

Wasn't this during the time Jacksonville wasn't paying their bills too if I remember posts on here in the past? Same with the KISS? I can't remember fully but the KISS or Jax were like 6 months behind on payments and were about to strike or whatever if they didn't get paid. Then they got paid and everything worked out.

So, 2 teams not paying their bills to the AFL, and the AFL can't pay the team they own. I mean that seems pretty logical right? 2 teams pay the league and the league then puts that money towards Portland. I don't know how the financial stuff works for the AFL, but that would be my first thought.

Rumor was the VooDoo were way behind in paying league fees. Also more teams than what you mentioned where "Rumored" to have not paid players in a timely fashion. To the point players where not gonna suit up.

Seems to me people like to pretend that these leagues are rock solid financially businesses that are run with German precision. Its the farthest thing from the truth across the board.

To my knowledge the VooDoo never stiffed any players or creditors but did get behind on league dues a number of times_________________"Make The AFL Great Again!"

Wasn't this during the time Jacksonville wasn't paying their bills too if I remember posts on here in the past? Same with the KISS? I can't remember fully but the KISS or Jax were like 6 months behind on payments and were about to strike or whatever if they didn't get paid. Then they got paid and everything worked out.

So, 2 teams not paying their bills to the AFL, and the AFL can't pay the team they own. I mean that seems pretty logical right? 2 teams pay the league and the league then puts that money towards Portland. I don't know how the financial stuff works for the AFL, but that would be my first thought.

Rumor was the VooDoo were way behind in paying league fees. Also more teams than what you mentioned where "Rumored" to have not paid players in a timely fashion. To the point players where not gonna suit up.

Seems to me people like to pretend that these leagues are rock solid financially businesses that are run with German precision. Its the farthest thing from the truth across the board.

To my knowledge the VooDoo never stiffed any players or creditors but did get behind on league dues a number of times

especially the last year, when they moved the office to a suburban industrial park as opposed to downtown, you could tell it was a shoestring operation. remember that press conference where Newman had to explicitly state "the VooDoo are coming back in 2015"?

then read between the lines in the article where Cokinos was announced as coach and Brandon Rizzuto as the new general manager. "Thank god, Brandon Rizzuto said yes" and "We're fortunate (Cokinos) decided to come"

Remember the rumors that swirled around at the end of the '14 season? We all as VooDoo fans thought that San Antonio game would be the last one._________________The VooDoo will rise again!!!!!!!!

Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law.

See, I've always been under the impression that AF1, LLC (which conducts business as the "Arena Football League") is a single-entity organization, and that its "franchisees" aren't franchisees in the common sense of the term, but more "managers," operating on behalf of AF1.

To put context to this contrast, imagine two fast food franchise groups. One's McDonald's, in which a guy who operates a location in Dubuque has been awarded a franchise specific to that location, operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co.").

The other is "Herbie's," in which a guy who operates a location in St. Louis has been granted authority to operate there, but who is a partner in the parent company (e.g., "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc.") rather than operating it as a separate entity (e.g., "St. Louis Herbie's Franchise, LLC").

The original AFL was a McDonald's in this regard. AF1, LLC appears to be a Herbie's.

The difference becomes evident when bills stop being paid. In the McDonald's example, "McDonald's Dubuque Franchising Co." is the entity on the hook, and while the McDonald's Corporation could take a PR hit, they aren't financially liable for the debts. In the Herbie's example though, "Herbie's Fish & Chips, Inc." is on the hook for all debts, wherever it has a location.

This is a long-winded way of saying that AF1, LLC is the responsible party for the debts of ALL its departed franchises, up to the point of their departure. So they're responsible for both Las Vegas and Portland's trail of debts... with the remaining four operators (as members of the LLC) responsible for paying them through AF1, LLC. Arizona and Jacksonville likely bought their way out of AF1, LLC, making a deal to pay off their share of AF1's debts upon departure, in exchange for keeping the team's intellectual properties and identity package.

If I'm anywhere close to being accurate about this however, the AFL's all but dead; as I mentioned earlier, no one in their right mind is going to pump money into a league knowing that by doing so, they're essentially just covering past losses and diluting the value of their investment initially to nothing. Unless it's someone who wants a multi-million dollar tax loss to put on their books.

Legally speaking, I can only tell you what my sister has told me. What she told me makes perfect sense. In the end, in a single-entity format such as the AFL, the league is solely responsible for teams' bills, There is no question that Butera screwed over Portland. He is about to be known as that type of commissioner/businessman, and they AFL will suffer a death because of it._________________This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.

"Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law. "

Here is a teaching moment for your sister, DT, should she pass the bar and actually start to practice law. As an attorney, one should never come to a conclusion until one is fully apprised of all the facts which in this case would be the agreement between the league and the entity which delineates the rights and liabilities of the respective parties. "According to the law" does not play into this, unless the agreement itself is in violation of the law. If it is not? The agreement itself determines (in this case) who pays for what. Thus unless your sister had the opportunity to review the agreement, her conclusion is specious, at best.

By the way, one of the big factors in IA and then AZ departing were having to pick up the losses of the failing franchises, to keep them afloat for the remainder of the season. That and the outrageous TV fees they had to pay, for a product that nobody in the scheme of things, watched anyway.

By the way, one of the big factors in IA and then AZ departing were having to pick up the losses of the failing franchises, to keep them afloat for the remainder of the season. That and the outrageous TV fees they had to pay

This was the true driver + the league fees including high priced Commissioner and lower # of teams to spread the costs around._________________4th

"Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law. "

Here is a teaching moment for your sister, DT, should she pass the bar and actually start to practice law. As an attorney, one should never come to a conclusion until one is fully apprised of all the facts which in this case would be the agreement between the league and the entity which delineates the rights and liabilities of the respective parties. "According to the law" does not play into this, unless the agreement itself is in violation of the law. If it is not? The agreement itself determines (in this case) who pays for what. Thus unless your sister had the opportunity to review the agreement, her conclusion is specious, at best.

By the way, one of the big factors in IA and then AZ departing were having to pick up the losses of the failing franchises, to keep them afloat for the remainder of the season. That and the outrageous TV fees they had to pay, for a product that nobody in the scheme of things, watched anyway.

+100

The fact that she's quoting legal interpretation from someone whose hasn't passed the bar or practiced a single day of law speaks for itself.

I have a friend who ran his own law firm for 8 years whose a "practicing" lawyer for 20 years. Done elder law, real estate closings, tried personal injury cases, and was counsel to the governors office, he was the best man at my wedding his sister is a sitting municipal court judge.

I wouldn't consider asking him about this without more information. I mean that is after he laughed in my face for five minutes for even thinking about this stuff...Legally speaking

"Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law. "

Here is a teaching moment for your sister, DT, should she pass the bar and actually start to practice law. As an attorney, one should never come to a conclusion until one is fully apprised of all the facts which in this case would be the agreement between the league and the entity which delineates the rights and liabilities of the respective parties. "According to the law" does not play into this, unless the agreement itself is in violation of the law. If it is not? The agreement itself determines (in this case) who pays for what. Thus unless your sister had the opportunity to review the agreement, her conclusion is specious, at best.

By the way, one of the big factors in IA and then AZ departing were having to pick up the losses of the failing franchises, to keep them afloat for the remainder of the season. That and the outrageous TV fees they had to pay, for a product that nobody in the scheme of things, watched anyway.

Lol! I am quite sure my sister does not need lessons from some random person on a message board. Since I wrote my comment, she has received the notification that she has passed the exam. My comment, however, does not say that she has had to review the format to know that a single entity typically incurs all debts once they assume control of a team. If the league wanted to recoup lost monies, they would have to go after the individual owners.

Obviously, until anyone, including yourself, actually were to review the contract, they will not be able to pin down the specifics. All I did is relay the concept of the law which she mentioned to me, in a casual setting. It's not like she is actually working on a case on this issue, and I clearly never implied as such.

Essentially, we're not even talking about the single-entity system. We are talking about one parent entity taking over a sub entity. Typically, in that type of take over, the entity taking over is responsible for the bills. That is not in question. Your criticism of my relay of my sister's comments are clearly erroneous. And your use of the word specious could not be further from the truth._________________This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.

"Legally, when the league took over the outlaws, the league incurred the bills, did they not? My sister, who has per Jjuris doctor in law, has taken the Oregon Bar Exam, and is awaiting the results, concludes that would be the case. Sure, the league can go after Vince Neil for to be recouped for that, but they are responsible for the bills, according to the law. "

Here is a teaching moment for your sister, DT, should she pass the bar and actually start to practice law. As an attorney, one should never come to a conclusion until one is fully apprised of all the facts which in this case would be the agreement between the league and the entity which delineates the rights and liabilities of the respective parties. "According to the law" does not play into this, unless the agreement itself is in violation of the law. If it is not? The agreement itself determines (in this case) who pays for what. Thus unless your sister had the opportunity to review the agreement, her conclusion is specious, at best.

By the way, one of the big factors in IA and then AZ departing were having to pick up the losses of the failing franchises, to keep them afloat for the remainder of the season. That and the outrageous TV fees they had to pay, for a product that nobody in the scheme of things, watched anyway.

+100

The fact that she's quoting legal interpretation from someone whose hasn't passed the bar or practiced a single day of law speaks for itself.

I have a friend who ran his own law firm for 8 years whose a "practicing" lawyer for 20 years. Done elder law, real estate closings, tried personal injury cases, and was counsel to the governors office, he was the best man at my wedding his sister is a sitting municipal court judge.

I wouldn't consider asking him about this without more information. I mean that is after he laughed in my face for five minutes for even thinking about this stuff...Legally speaking

Well dude, the joke is on you, since she has passed the exam. Just because you wouldn't ask your friend or his sister about this, in a casual setting, doesn't mean someone cannot touch on simple contractual concepts. My sister and I were speaking informally about this. We were having a conversation. I'm not sure where you even fathom that either one of us were interpreting the legalities of what we're talking about here. To assume that is ludicrous.

I understand you do not like me and, frankly, I do not care. I understand that your comment is more of an effort to troll than to actually address the situation which was reported by Kyle Iboshi. Maybe you should actually keep your comments directed at the topic on hand._________________This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.

Well dude, the joke is on you, since she has passed the exam. Just because you wouldn't ask your friend or his sister about this, in a casual setting, doesn't mean someone cannot touch on simple contractual concepts. My sister and I were speaking informally about this. We were having a conversation. I'm not sure where you even fathom that either one of us were interpreting the legalities of what we're talking about here. To assume that is ludicrous.

I understand you do not like me and, frankly, I do not care. I understand that your comment is more of an effort to troll than to actually address the situation which was reported by Kyle Iboshi. Maybe you should actually keep your comments directed at the topic on hand.

I don't dislike you at all. The AFL has a history of screwing fans, arenas and vendors over long before Scott Butera took the helm.

Look you're taking this stuff way too seriously. As it stands right now IMO The AFL is a joke no doubt. But as someone whose played in a few "indoor" leagues and have friends who worked for some teams. The indoor leagues are not any better. I know people who are still waiting for a game check from the CIFL circa 2008.

Well dude, the joke is on you, since she has passed the exam. Just because you wouldn't ask your friend or his sister about this, in a casual setting, doesn't mean someone cannot touch on simple contractual concepts. My sister and I were speaking informally about this. We were having a conversation. I'm not sure where you even fathom that either one of us were interpreting the legalities of what we're talking about here. To assume that is ludicrous.

I understand you do not like me and, frankly, I do not care. I understand that your comment is more of an effort to troll than to actually address the situation which was reported by Kyle Iboshi. Maybe you should actually keep your comments directed at the topic on hand.

I don't dislike you at all. The AFL has a history of screwing fans, arenas and vendors over long before Scott Butera took the helm.

Look you're taking this stuff way too seriously. As it stands right now IMO The AFL is a joke no doubt. But as someone whose played in a few "indoor" leagues and have friends who worked for some teams. The indoor leagues are not any better. I know people who are still waiting for a game check from the CIFL circa 2008.

I do not disagree that the AFL has screwed over markets. That is why is will be so difficult for Butera's NBA/NHL owner format will not work in the long run. I do find it ironic that many of those who brazenly supported Butera and his plan, are now praising Leonsis and "his" rescuing of the league. I just do not see Leonsis as the savior of the AFL happening.

Sadly, it could be a matter of what several have already said; the sport itself may have lived out its life expectancy. I hope that is not the case, but one has to wonder if there is some validity to that.

It is still a quandary that you attacked my sister, without knowing the extent of her schooling nor knowledge. You do not know my sister, nor do you know me. Nor, did you know the substance of the conversation she and I had on this issue. I relayed her comments on general contractual law on a subject such as this. That is it. While it does not necessarily help your point of view is irrelevant. Also, you should know; attack my sister, I will defend.

If you do not dislike me, that is great. I could have been wrong about that. It simply seemed, given past comments, that you did not._________________This post has been screen-grabbed to prevent tampering and plagerism.

I do not disagree that the AFL has screwed over markets. That is why is will be so difficult for Butera's NBA/NHL owner format will not work in the long run.

This is the fundamental reason why the AFL is likely in its death throes. Its history is a long one of bouncing in-and-out of markets, to a point where what fans the sport did have often had no idea from one year to the next whether they were going to have a team to support.

And as the years went on, the ownership of teams went from bold entrepreneurs who bought into the original vision of the league concept, to a second generation that had scads of money to burn on trying to elevate it (and did so, only to realize it didn't help their bottom lines, after which they bailed), and a third generation who comparatively speaking haven't had two quarters to rub together, making the whole enterprise shaky.

Butera & Co. are trying to return things to the second generation, but as those who own teams in the "big four" sports tend to run in the same circles, the owners Butera has been trying to enlist are wise to how the AFL operated during the David Baker ponzi-scheme era. Consequently, they're (rightly) gunshy at the prospect of putting money into it, and his overall plan doesn't seem to be working.

The AFL has managed to do something only the NASL did before it: it launched a new league, in a sport that was viewed as unique to North American audiences... then it proceeded to drive the whole enterprise so far into the ground that they killed not only the league, but killed interest in the sport for at least a generation. Let the AFL die. Perhaps in 2030 the next generation will construct the MLS equivalent of Arena Football.